WHAT DEANS CAN DO

Karol Dean

Mercy College, New York

USING RESEARCH TO ADDRESS CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Diane Hall – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Sarice Greenstein – NASPA - Student Affairs Administrators in

Higher Education

Jacqueline White – University of North Carolina, Greensboro

(emerita)

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

OUTLINE

1. Role of college administrators in current regulatory environment

2. Assessing campus climate for sexual misconduct

3. Identifying evidence-based reduction/prevention programs

4. Shift from compliance and liability reduction to care and effective prevention

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

ADMINISTRATORS AS TRANSLATORS

College and university administrators are faced with the opportunity and

the challenge of integrating policy, science and practice as we seek to

reduce sexual violence

Understand and interpret federal, state and campus regulations

Implement campus investigations, procedures, and conduct reviews

Assess campus climate

Plan programming – awareness, prevention, risk reduction

But there is not uniform understanding of sexual violence research by

administrators

Current Campus Context

• Recent increased attention to sexual assault in response to federal and state regulation at higher education institutions, but now uncertainty at federal level

• Title IX and “Dear Colleague” letter

• Campus SaVE Act

• Clery Act

• State regulation – California, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Louisiana, Indiana, Virginia

• Increased focus on sexual misconduct because of media coverage of famous individuals accused

• Increasingly litigious environment, including alleged perpetrators filing lawsuits

DESIRED CAMPUS OUTCOMES

• Focus on changing culture vs. compliance and liability reduction.

• Multi-pronged approach needed to stop complex social behaviors

• Institutional attention and focus

• Varied messages for distinct approaches to identified audiences

(prevention, resistance, intervention)

• Engagement of community in organizational change

• Breadth (audience exposure) AND depth (audience change)

WHY ASSESS CAMPUS CLIMATE?

Obtain baseline data

Identify local areas of concern (types of misconduct, demographic data for those affected by misconduct)

Identify interventions to address areas of concern

Serve across time as a barometer of the success of policies, procedures, services, and prevention

programs

Recommended by White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault

Meaningful prevention rests on identifying the reasons sexual misconduct is perpetrated and the

environments that foster it.

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

WHAT SHOULD BE ASSESSED?

Assessment of victimization and perpetration

Assessment of multiple forms of misconduct (sexual assault, intimate partner violence,

stalking, sexual harassment)

Assessment of student perception of campus environment, and responsiveness of

campus to sexual misconduct incidents

Assessment of student knowledge of campus resources

Use of validated instruments developed by social scientists with experience in this field

Ease of administration and use – likelihood of representative participation

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

ADMINISTRATOR RESEARCHER CAMPUS CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE (ARC3) SURVEY

In February 2015, a group of researchers, administrators, and educators met to draft an

open-source scientific survey that can help assess sexual violence on campus

23 experts from campuses around the country

Scientifically sound survey for campuses that seek to base their prevention and education

efforts on reliable data.

Balances the need for scientific standardization with flexibility for individual institutions.

Designed to be responsive to the White House initiatives on Title IX but to do so in a way

that provides useable information that will inform program planning

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Ensuring independence and integrity in research

A commitment to use of the best scientific evidence as the foundation of the survey

Equal focus on surveying victimization and perpetration

The adoption of a civil rights approach grounded in Title IX

Framing our efforts with the principles of The Belmont Report

Respect for persons

Beneficence

Justice

A sensitivity to the unique issues faced by various diverse populations and higher education institutional types

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

Antonia Abbey Professor of Psychology Wayne State University

Noel Busch-Armendariz Professor of Social Work, and Director of Institute on Domestic

Violence and Sexual Assault

University of Texas at Austin

Jacquelyn Campbell Professor of Nursing Johns Hopkins University

Brett Carter Dean of Students University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Gretchen Clum Associate Professor of Public Health Tulane University

Sarah Cook Professor of Psychology, and Associate Dean of Honors College Georgia State University

Amalia Corby-Edwards Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer American Psychological Association

Lilia Cortina Associate Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies University of Michigan

Karol Dean Dean of School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Professor

of Psychology

Mercy College

Louise Deuce Special Assistant to the Vice President of Student Life The Ohio State University

Louise Fitzgerald Emerita Professor of Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies University of Illinois at Urbana Champagne

Bill Flack Associate Professor of Psychology Bucknell University

Jennifer Freyd Professor of Psychology University of Oregon

Jaray Gillespie Assistant Dean of Students Georgia State University

Anne Hedgepeth Government Relations Manager American Association of University Women

Kathryn Holland Doctoral Candidate in Psychology and Women’s Studies University of Michigan

Janet Hyde Professor of Psychology and Gender & Women’s Studies University of Wisconsin

Mary Koss Regents’ Professor of Public Health University of Arizona

Felicia McGinty Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Rutgers University

Meredith Smith Lead Title IX Investigator and Deputy Title IX Coordinator University of Connecticut

Kate Stover Educational Programmer Title IX Compliance Institute

Kevin Swartout Assistant Professor of Psychology Georgia State University

Jacqueline White Emerita Professor of Psychology University of North Carolina at Greensboro

ARC3 SURVEY

Overcomes a history of disconnect between administrators and researchers

Has the potential to contribute to advocacy, activism, social change, and capacity building,

outcomes that may have long-lasting impacts

Including administrators in the research process from the beginning increases the

likelihood that research data are used to inform policy changes

Including researchers in the program and policy process from the beginning increases the

likelihood that policies and programs will be based on relevant evidence

EVIDENCE-BASED PREVENTION/REDUCTION

In some regulatory guidelines, there are requirements or expectations that campuses

attempt to change the environment through the use of programming and training to

reduce incidence or to reduce the severity

In response, an array of programs and services are being offered, often by for-profit

organizations

Title IX officers, student affairs professionals, campus committees are the decision makers

HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE? CURRENT CRITERIA

Ease of administration / scalability

Apparent popularity in the market

Ability to track student participation to demonstrate compliance

Price

However, theory or evidence in support of a program may not be a primary consideration

when deciding on programming and response.

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL MODEL

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ASK: WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM IS NEEDED ON CAMPUS?

Designed to educate about resources, responsibilities, rights and policies

Designed to increase general awareness of sexual violence and reveal or address social

norms

Designed to decrease perpetration

Designed to increase bystander intervention / victim resistance

Focus on skill attainment, behavior change, norm awareness and shift

Must be comprehensive

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ASK: WHAT ELEMENTS OF THE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED?

Commuter or residential campus

Racial/ethnic/cultural/religious characteristics of students

Diverse populations within the student population (LGBTQ, ability, English language learners, international, study abroad)

Values of campus community and surrounding community

Students’ availability for participation in programs

Students’ access to programs

CCAS 2017 ANNUAL MEETING

Source: Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ASK: WHAT RESEARCH EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE PROGRAM?

Is there research evidence indicating the program is effective?

Did the research study demonstrate that the program caused any effects found (used an experimental or quasi-

experimental design)?

Was the program evaluated in comparison with other programs designed to have a similar effect?

Was the was the data collection process repeated more than once?

Does the program seem to address the behavior identified?

Has the program been successfully used in college settings?

Are there comprehensive instructions to implement the program?

Level of Evidence

1. Supported By Evidence. Program authors or researchers have established evidence of effectiveness of this program by

demonstrating participants’ improvements on one or more learning objective, using an experimental or quasi-

experimental design (with a comparison group). This evaluation data must have been published in at least one peer-

reviewed publication.

2. Promising Direction. Program authors or researchers have established evidence of effectiveness of this program by

demonstrating participants’ improvements on one or more learning objective using a non-experimental design (no

comparison group). This type of evaluation data may be self-published by the authors, or published in a peer-reviewed

publication.

3. Emerging. There is an expected effect of this program because it is based off sound theory and previous research. This

might mean that there is evidence that participants and administrators are satisfied, but no evidence that learning

objectives were achieved.

Programs that are not based in sound theory or whose evaluation studies did not demonstrate an effect are not included on our

website. Programs may be reconsidered for inclusion if new research or evidence supports placing them into one of the three

categories above.

NASPA PREVENTION PROGRAMMING MATRIX

SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE:- RealConsent – Online Program – Men only – Laura Salazar, Judy Kaufman & Alan Berkowitz – Georgia State

University

- interACT – Performance – March Rich – CSU Long Beach

- SCREAM Theatre – Performance – Rutgers University

- Sex Signals – Performance – Catharsis Productions (private company)

- OneAct – Workshop – UNC Chapel Hill

- Bringing in the Bystander – Workshop – Prevention Innovations – UNH

- Know Your Power – Workshop – Prevention Innovations – UNH

- Green Dot – Workshop and Community Mobilization – Green Dot, etc. (NGO)

- The Women’s Program – Workshop – John D. Foubert – One in Four (NGO)

- Men’s Program – Workshop – John D. Foubert – One in Four (NGO)

- Men’s Workshop – Workshop – Alan Berkowitz

- Enhanced Access Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Sexual Assault Resistance – Workshop – SARE Centre – University of

Windsor (Canada)

PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION (NATION ET AL., 2003)

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 449.

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ASK: WILL PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROGRAM ACTUALLY PREVENT CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT?

Does the program address all the elements that might affect this complex behavior?

Does the program utilize diverse approaches to teaching or changing behavior?

Does the program provide enough exposure to the content to change behavior?

Is the program based on an appropriate theory and is it supported by research?

Does the program create positive relationships among peers?

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ASK: WILL PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROGRAM ACTUALLY PREVENT CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT?

Will the program be provided in time to make a difference?

Is the program socio-culturally relevant for this campus?

What is the plan to evaluate whether the program works on this

campus?

Have the staff members involved in the program been trained to

implement it correctly and effectively?

CHALLENGES –EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENTS

Requirements for training of disparate constituent groups without an array of approaches

and with little evidence of group-level effectiveness

Implementation of preventive programs with an ever-changing student audience

Little data or research on effective programming for non-traditional student populations

(e.g., commuters, online students, returning adult students and other demographic groups)

Need for campus-based assessment of results of programming

No silver bullets

WHAT DEANS CAN DO: SHIFT THE CULTURE

Shift from “out of the box” programs and offered solutions to complex

solutions to this complicated problem, which respond to the

environment

Shift from a focus on compliance and liability reduction to a focus on

care for victims, and prevention of perpetration

WHAT DEANS CAN DO: USE THE RESEARCH

• Use research evidence about what works and what does not

• Single sex presentation

• Professional facilitation of programs rather than peer facilitation

• Multiple sessions with long session lengths offered at many points

during students’ college career

• Focus on gender-role socialization, human sexuality, rape myths, rape

deterrence, rape awareness, and/or self-defense

• Ideal presentation formats are workshop-based or classroom courses,

supported with campus media and public service announcements

WHAT DEANS CAN DO: THINK INSTITUTIONALLY

Use a multi-pronged approach to stop complex social behaviors

Address three foci (prevention, resistance, intervention)

Understand own audiences, and how programming might work for that audience

What is needed here

Alignment with this audience

Varied messages for distinct approaches to identified audiences

Focus on institutional change – programming for faculty and staff

Engagement of community in organizational change

Attend to both breadth (audience exposure) and depth (audience change)

WHAT DEANS CAN DO: CHANGE THE CULTURE

Simultaneous application of prevention, resistance and intervention

programs, done well, could

•Enhance student awareness

•Change social relationships among students (and others?) on

campus

•Reduce perpetration and increase intervention and resistance when

assault attempts do occur

WHAT DEANS CAN DO: FOSTER THIS CULTURAL SHIFT

Seek ongoing feedback from the campus community about what works, what

doesn’t and what is needed

Facilitate student activism and engagement with other students in this work –

pressure to fix what is not working

We must take advantage of the opportunity created by increased attention to

this issue to require collaboration across campus and community silos in order

to be effective, bringing the best of what each area has to offer in addressing

this critical problem

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Administrators have an opportunity to positively influence campus environment

related to sexual misconduct

2. Campus climate assessment provides campus-level data on sexual misconduct

not previously available – baseline assessment

3. Sexual assault reduction/prevention programs utilized should be based on

evidence that they reduce sexual misconduct behavior and that implementation will

lead to prevention

4. Administrators can use available resources, adapted to their campus

environment, to change the culture of their institutions

5. ARC3 Campus Climate Survey: http://campusclimate.gsu.edu/ and Prevention

Programming Matrix: http://cultureofrespect.org/colleges-universities/programs/

SOURCES

•Klein, L., Rizzo, A., & Stapleton, J. (2016). Choosing prevention products: Questions to ask when considering sexual and relationship violence and stalking prevention products. Prevention Innovations Research Center. Retrieved from www.unh.edu/prevention-innovations.

•Nation, M. Crusto, C., Wanderman, A. Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D. Morrissey-Kane, E., Davino, K. (2003) What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, pp. 449-456.

•Puddy, R. W. & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding Evidence Part 1: Best Available Research Evidence. A Guide to the Continuum of Evidence of Effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/understanding_evidence-a.pdf

CONTACT INFORMATION

Karol Dean

Dean, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Mercy College

Dobbs Ferry, New York

kdean@mercy.edu

914.674.7517

THANK

YOU